Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ujariyaon

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 02:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ujariyaon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGEO, as tagged since May 2015. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 15:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a village. It is the site of controversy in May 2016 vs. "top cop" of nearby Gomti Nagar or Gomtinagar, as covered in Times of India: Villagers raze structure 'built over graveyard by top cop TNN | May 24, 2016, 01.28 AM IST). It is described as one of "old Muslim villages now surrounded by modern townships" in this, suggesting longer history (likely off-line). There is a 2006 court case disputing about it: "The suggestion of the Lucknow Development Authority before the Committee was to the effect that the land in village Ujariyaon which was actually green belt in the Master Plan of 2021 may be earmarked in the proposed Master Plan, 2021 for the purpose of residential use." I stop in the 2nd page of Google results. There would be more coverage in Hindustani and Urdu. --do ncr am 02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doncram. It is a recognized population center which are inherently notable regardless of size. --Oakshade (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.